If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   "I'm concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That if you're poor, somehow you're shiftless and lazy." - OH Governor and confirmed Communist John Kasich   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 224
    More: Hero, John Kasich, war on poverty, GOP  
•       •       •

3106 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2013 at 4:48 PM (36 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-30 09:05:24 AM

RedPhoenix122: Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.


img.photobucket.com

/in this case, Cruz represents the whole of the Tea Party and not just himself
//very late to this party
 
2013-10-30 09:36:58 AM

Jackson Herring: Dusk-You-n-Me: Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link

the just world fallacy is the foundation of modern conservative thought


In defense of normal folks - namely my husband - the just world fallacy is incredibly insidious. He didn't even realize he was doing it, and he's a reasonable, fair-minded guy. It's taken him some time to see the outside of the entire fallacy and gauge its size, and he's appalled at how pervasive it is. But what that means is that it's really hard to see it all from the inside.

(I have the opposite problem; I instantly distrust anyone who's got more than a certain amount of money)
 
2013-10-30 09:40:45 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Reciprocal altruism implies that voters will dislike giving money to the poor if, as in the United States, the poor are perceived as lazy. In contrast, Europeans overwhelmingly believe that the poor are poor because they have been unfortunate. This difference in views is part of what is sometimes referred to as "American exceptionalism." Link


That's not American Exceptionalism.  Do you really trust a blog that would so badly misunderstand a basic component of the American political psyche?
 
2013-10-30 09:59:10 AM

Cagey B: I'm not particularly impressed by an attempted union-buster's rhetorical defense of the working poor.


Done in one. He's just prepping for re-election because, despite a very loud and dumb minority, Ohio isn't batshiat tea'tard nuts like other states. Kasich knows there will be consequences amongst the silent moderate majority with his bullshiat. That's why he's gone back to his K Street roots.

Plus we nailed his sorry ass on SB 5. First Kasich than the rest of the scumbags leading the Ohio GOP.
 
2013-10-30 10:04:37 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Jackson Herring: burn in hell forever, reagan, you piece of shiat

This should be especially evident in Ohio.

Reagan basically told Ohioans they were shiftless and lazy when steel died there -- it was all their own fault, and the only reason unemployment soared was because they were all lazy. Then he cut all of the employment and retraining programs (like CETA and the BEOG).

Maybe Kasich has a memory.


I really want a source for this. It would be wunderbar.
 
2013-10-30 10:06:34 AM

netcentric: We need food stamps, head start and many of the social programs for those who are in need.   Thankfully we have no debt limits and it is merely a process of getting tax dollars from one group and re-depositing them with those who apply.

I believe soon we are pushing for universal childcare.   These are all good programs to get cash into the hands of our constituents.

1 in 6 Americans are on food stamps.    We can do better.
...by 2017 we can get 1in4 on food stamps.


You new style....needs moar libtardos.

But you'll catch a couple with it.
 
2013-10-30 10:21:49 AM
Now if we could only get him to acknowledge his party's war of women we could get somewhere.
 
2013-10-30 10:26:57 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: That's repugnant to Judaism:


Pretty sure most of Christianity is repugnant to Judiasm.  That whole new/old testament and Jesus is the messiah thing being two of the better known sticking points.   Not to mention Jesus telling people that the old commandments were old and busted.

Tzedakah - it means justice, fairness, and righteousness, and was mistranslated as  charity - is a mandatory obligation of all society to the young, old, poor, homeless, hungry, destitute, and foreigners in the land.
No first century Jew would endorse that view, nor would they have endorsed self-impoverishment.


No first century Jew except Jesus apparently, who clearly endorsed self-impoverishment multiple times (at least according to the Bible).

/And I am absolutely certain that you haven't sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor.

Obviously. But then I'm not a Christian, so it's not exactly hypocritical of me.

// כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה  (Shavuot 39a) means it is our responsibility to stand up for each other,
///especially for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak up for themselves.


I don't think that Christian teaching would conflict with that.  But again, that sentiment does not imply an obligation for Christians (or Jews) to take from non-Christians or non-Jews in order to care for the poor or vulnerable.
 
2013-10-30 10:28:44 AM

Chummer45: It's sad that these kind of comments coming from a Republican is considered remarkable nowadays.


I wish there were a *Sad* button so that I could agree with you.
 
2013-10-30 10:36:06 AM

impaler: That chart is bullshat. A lie. Specifically that yellow bar.


Nope.  You can check the iformation here.  The benefit ends (for a family of 3) at $39K (today's numbers differ a bit from the chart that was done a years ago).  Also, it is a direct subsidy, not a tax credit.

Go read the link and keep your lies to yourself.
 
2013-10-30 10:38:30 AM

jst3p: When minimum wage was created it was meant to support a family and capitalism didn't collapse.


Never said that there was anythign wrong with trying to keep folks out of poverty.  You just need to be aware of the unintended consequences of these policies the best you can and try to make it work without shooting yourself in the foot.
 
2013-10-30 10:39:11 AM
Sergeant Grumbles: It makes just as much sense because charity is a terribly inefficient way to get anything done,

[citation needed]
 
2013-10-30 10:40:39 AM

IlGreven: RedPhoenix122: Wow, ballsy move.  Too bad he's gonna lose in the primaries now.

And yet, in Ohio, he's stirred up the same shiat Scott Walker has.  He's only saying this because he's worried Ted Strickland will take him out next year*. I don't think he's concerned about a primary, because Ohio is purple enough that a Tea Party candidate hands the governor's mansion to the Democrat, who ever s/he is.

*At least, I assume that Strickland will run for governor again.


No.  It's Ed Fitzgerald.
 
2013-10-30 10:41:14 AM

Hobodeluxe: lockers: tbeatty: Actually the war is on the shiftless and lazy.

Better to starve a million kids then to let one mother smoke a joint and get away with it!

it goes along with their "I'd rather keep a million from voting if it keeps one from getting away with voter fraud."


I guess you really don't know the difference between poor and "shiftless and lazy."  Let's pray you don't have children.    This is the kind of rhetoric that can't distinguish between perpetrators of crimes and victims.
 
2013-10-30 10:47:50 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: makes just as much sense because charity is a terribly inefficient way to get anything done


If you want to worry about inefficiency, then let's insitute a system where money is collected throught a faceless bureauracy that has a closet full of political skeletons, give that money to another bureaucracy where fraud and abuse are well known (Medicare for example is estimated to lose about $60Billion per year in fraud and abuse), and then let some of that money trickle down to those that really need it.

If you want to discuss this in the context of efficiency of dollar spent, I'll take private charity any day.  Most studies agree.
 
2013-10-30 10:53:25 AM

Fart_Machine: You don't sign up for one program and get everything.


Never said you did.  One stop shopping includes having you stop into the Department of Public Welfare and they can tell you what you are eligible for and set you up with all the papework you need in order to apply for muliple benefit programs.

Or you can open up the state's website and go to a single page (this is PA's)
 
2013-10-30 10:57:33 AM

bbfreak: Marcus Aurelius: It's OK to point out the war on the poor.  Just don't be a high ranking GOP party member when you do it.

No, its totally fine as a high ranking GOP party member. You just have to laugh with your buddies on how so many people bought that trickle down bullshiat and how you're all filthy rich as a result. Reagan started all of this, and from an economic standpoint he was much worse than any other president we've had in the past 30 years. Yes, that includes even Bush Jr. Are Democrats to blame too? Sure, they abandoned any principals they had in favor of going further to the right to win elections.

Republicans started this though, so hopefully we can finally put to rest the myth that Republicans are moral because they are Christians and ultimately financially responsible. You know, because income inequality is totally financially responsible.


No, Reagan did not start it. He may have given it a name but the idea that giving money to rich people will make everything nice goes clear back to the Great Depression.
 
2013-10-30 10:58:01 AM

Fart_Machine: You don't sign up for one program and get everything.


In addition, why would you sign up for a specific program and expect to get multiple benefits from muliple programs. That does not even make any sense.  Your strawman's underwear is showing.
 
2013-10-30 01:42:14 PM

Talondel: demaL-demaL-yeH: That's repugnant to Judaism:
Pretty sure most of Christianity is repugnant to Judiasm.  That whole new/old testament and Jesus is the messiah thing being two of the better known sticking points.   Not to mention Jesus telling people that the old commandments were old and busted.



Bull: Matthew 5:17-20.    


Tzedakah - it means justice, fairness, and righteousness, and was mistranslated as  charity - is a mandatory obligation of all society to the young, old, poor, homeless, hungry, destitute, and foreigners in the land.
No first century Jew would endorse that view, nor would they have endorsed self-impoverishment.

No first century Jew except Jesus apparently, who clearly endorsed self-impoverishment multiple times (at least according to the Bible).


Not my religion, but that message was always used as a sharp instrument pointed at the rich. 


/And I am absolutely certain that you haven't sold all your possessions and given the money to the poor.
Obviously. But then I'm not a Christian, so it's not exactly hypocritical of me.

// כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה  (Shavuot 39a) means it is our responsibility to stand up for each other,
///especially for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak up for themselves.

I don't think that Christian teaching would conflict with that.  But again, that sentiment does not imply an obligation for Christians (or Jews) to take from non-Christians or non-Jews in order to care for the poor or vulnerable.



No, taking care of the poor is a societal obligation and applies to everybody, all alike - that's (13-32) repeated over and over and over and over and over...   Inhospitality is the reason given for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.
 
2013-10-30 02:33:07 PM

HeadLever: If you want to discuss this in the context of efficiency of dollar spent, I'll take private charity any day.


Like I said, you're technically right in that charities cannot fail as long as they work towards their stated goal.
That doesn't mean private charity even begins to get the help people need to as many people as need it, something collective, socialized effort has succeeded wonderfully at. Private charity is woefully inadequate and wholly inefficient for such a thing. Citation? The same one I used before, 48 million uninsured. Why is this a bad thing? One reason is because those 48 million can't all count on private charity to pay their medical bills.
 
2013-10-30 04:04:41 PM
Translation:  I wanna get as far from the TP assholes as humanly possible; they're now identified as politically radioactive.
 
2013-10-30 04:34:42 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: You don't sign up for one program and get everything.

In addition, why would you sign up for a specific program and expect to get multiple benefits from muliple programs. That does not even make any sense.  Your strawman's underwear is showing.


Um, I never said that.  You're the one claiming that somehow a mother making 29K gets over 60K in benefits based on chart by the AEI which only is the case if everybody qualified and got the maximum amount after applying for every single benefit.

Which is a bullshait scenario. So your strawman says what?
 
2013-10-30 04:58:33 PM
For more details why this is bullshait visit here.
 
2013-10-30 10:29:55 PM

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: You don't sign up for one program and get everything.

Never said you did.  One stop shopping includes having you stop into the Department of Public Welfare and they can tell you what you are eligible for and set you up with all the papework you need in order to apply for muliple benefit programs.

Or you can open up the state's website and go to a single page (this is PA's)


So we should hire more bureaucrats and make people slog to multiple (leased) offices in different parts to apply for different programs?  Sounds like a good 'small government' solution to me.
 
Displayed 24 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report